When Scheme Variations Are Erased : Mutual Fund Critic

SEBI’s determination to create clearly outlined scheme classes (and to restrict fund homes to at least one scheme per class) was an enormous step in the direction of empowering traders to make higher scheme decisions.  It’s been a 12 months since that got here into impact and for essentially the most half, it’s been successful.  Sadly, some funds homes have discovered (or are discovering) methods to wipe out the variations between schemes throughout completely different classes.  Whereas there’s a want for SEBI to step in, traders additionally have to be vigilant, else we might find yourself holding a scheme that’s fairly completely different from what we anticipated it to be. 

On this put up, I need to share just a few examples of the number of methods by which fund homes have tried to blur the variations between schemes in numerous classes.  I’ve introduced these within the type of a brief quiz.  There’s a hyperlink to the solutions on the finish of the put up.

Q1: Misleading Descriptions

Given under are the descriptions of two open-end fairness funds managed by a sure fund home.  These descriptions have been taken from the fund home web site.  One of many schemes is classed as a ‘Mid Cap’ fund.  Primarily based on these descriptions, are you able to establish which one in every of these is the actual ‘Mid Cap’ fund?

Fund A:

An open ended fairness scheme predominately investing in mid cap shares

Fund B:

…is primarily a Mid-cap fund which provides traders the chance to take part within the progress story of right now’s comparatively medium sized however rising corporations which have the potential to be well-established tomorrow.

Q2: Misleading Promoting

Given under are masked banner adverts for 2 fairness schemes managed by a single fund home.  Considered one of these schemes is classed as a ‘Targeted’ fund, whereas the opposite is classed as a ‘Multi Cap’ fund.  In case you had been in a position to learn the detailed descriptions (that are in smaller print), you may need been in a position to know which advert is for which scheme.  However since these are web site adverts, which many could have seen (or will see) on cell units, the headlines develop into all of the extra necessary.  Primarily based on the headlines, are you able to establish which of those is the precise ‘Targeted’ fund?

Fund C:

Fund D:

Q3: Misleading Allocations

Going by SEBI’s definition, within the so-called ‘Balanced Benefit’ funds, the fairness/ debt allocation is required to be managed “dynamically”.  Whereas some might take into account that time period to be all-encompassing, from what I’ve gathered, the aim of getting this class is to group these funds the place the fairness/ debt combine will likely be determined by way of a strategy of tactical asset allocation.  Because it occurs, at the least one fund home both has an awfully restrictive interpretation of what ‘dynamic’ means or has chosen to not make tactical calls.  The fairness allocation of its ‘Balanced Benefit’ fund has remained in a remarkably slim band and has had little resemblance to that of some other ‘Balanced Benefit’ fund.  However it has had greater than a passing resemblance to the fairness allocation of the ‘Aggressive Hybrid’ fund managed by the identical fund home.  Given under is the unhedged fairness allocation for the final 12 months for the 2 schemes.  Primarily based on this data, are you able to establish which of those is the ‘Aggressive Hybrid’ fund and which is the ‘Balanced Benefit’ fund?

This autumn: Misleading Threat Profile

‘Credit score Threat’ Funds are required to have at the least 65% of their portfolio in securities which can be rated AA or decrease.  It’s usually anticipated that these funds will carry a better credit score danger than some other class of debt funds.  Given under is the most recent ranking profile, yield, and maturity of the portfolios of three debt funds, managed by a single fund home.  Primarily based on this data, are you able to establish which of those is the ‘Credit score Threat’ fund?